Publicly stating that you will halve childhood poverty in 10 years is a big call to make, regardless of your political leanings. But just how realistic and doable is it, honestly?
We would all love to believe it and I'm sure that, with the help of some creative accounting, the less cynical may be swayed, like the fact that in 10 years time most 8-10 years old experiencing poverty now will be classed as adults and will no longer fall under that huge 18-year-old umbrella that recognises them as a child.
So, just how is this going to be fairly achieved and who is actually going to benefit?
Is there some magical way, with the help of fairies and unicorns, that 50 percent of those affected, get a lucky golden ticket that somehow entitles them to be plucked from poverty and mysteriously transported on an enchanted cloud, to the land of the more fortunate while the remaining half get to wallow in their continued squalor for the unforeseeable future.
Perhaps the cold hard truth will be buried in semantics and no-one experiencing poverty today will actually be helped because all the resources will, in fact, be going towards those who have already been predetermined to be born into poverty for the next ten years.
If I'm wrong, then can someone please explain how the escaping 50 per cent are to be selected and on what basis, and what makes them more deserving than those that get left behind?
This is where politicians need to choose their words very carefully. Will childhood poverty really be reduced by 50 per cent overall or will we be halfway towards its eventual alleviation - there's a freaking gigantic difference between each statement.
It's a real shame that all policy is never as easy or black and white as when they pass their own ginormous annual salary increases in near record time, or a government department approves mega-thousands for a swanky conference at a 5 Star resort.
I wonder how many of these events will be held to discuss the issue of poverty, while gorging on king prawns, chilled Rose and salmon steaks?
The money for any initiatives should be going directly to the coalface ... not the coals that stoke the conference BBQ, but I'm picking that like almost every government "fix", the initial bulging budgets will be blown on administrative and set-up costs, worthless studies and research, workshops, and nonsensical ad campaigns that will invariably fail to reach their target audience.
But hey, we're playing personality politics these days. We have a new, young, pretty-ish PM, adorably pregnant with a budding stay at home dad firmly in tow. Lets all knit booties and sing, John Lennon's, Imagine and believe because we want to.
Please, be my guest and prove me wrong. There's nothing I'd love more.
Take a note of my email address and in 10 years time, I want to hear from the affected 50 per cent. Attach the pics of your new affordable housing and healthily stocked fridges, your glowing work references, clean criminal records and proof of non-benefit supplied incomes.
Bonus points will be given for home ownership and proof of world travel, rental properties, boats and bitcoin plus there's a free gift for those who include photos of the leprechauns, pixie dust and magic wands that helped them on their mystical journey.
Forgive me if not entirely convinced by the claim ... I'm failing to reach 5 per cent, let alone 50.
Believe in the personality all you like, I'm convinced her intentions are honourable, but sheer logic tells me that, as a policy,(the only doable bit) it can't be done without, somehow, fudging the numbers and we all know that fudge is usually the colour of bullsh*t.
100 per cent of your feedback is welcome: firstname.lastname@example.org
More from Kate Stewart